View Full Version : Engine Trouble Forces Flight From SFO To Land
armchairpilot94116
22nd Dec 2007, 07:07
http://cbs5.com/local/SFO.emergency.landing.2.616294.html
Anyone have any further news on this?
Avman
22nd Dec 2007, 08:04
Not much more to add I'd say, unless you're looking for the technical details of the "failure". I would guess that's under investigation and it may take a while for the nitty gritty details to emerge.
Final 3 Greens
22nd Dec 2007, 16:56
Sounds like a couple of well trained professionals doing a professional job.
As an FQTV pax, I'd like to say that I appreciate the level of skill that delivers such non events :ok:
barit1
23rd Dec 2007, 13:58
The media tend to regard anything more than a F/O's hangnail as "emergency". A simple engine failure after takeoff isn't.
Good job by the crew, but that's what they're trained to do. ATC probably had their hands full more so than the flight crew, but that's what THEY'RE trained to do.
Many years ago I was SLF on an AA 727-100 STL-LAX, when #3 lost oil pressure on climbout. The only reason we couldn't continue to LAX was that the Rocky Mountains would have presented a problem had we lost a second engine. Thus we diverted to AA's maintenance base at TUL to transfer to another 727 coming out of the shop. (OMG! Flew over 300 miles with a faulty engine!)
The biggest problem was the replacement 727-200 was supposed to have one additional cabin staff (more seats, you know) even though we only had the same -100 load of pax. I think we eventually departed TUL with only the original CC.
matt_hooks
27th Dec 2007, 13:30
Barit, interesting concept, engine failure after take-off not an emergency?
barit1
27th Dec 2007, 17:28
I've been closely familiar with several AFM's, and NONE of them treated EFATO as a procedure in the Emergency chapter. Fly the airplane, shut the errant donk down when at a safe altitude.
Now an engine FIRE WARNING is a different animal.
I'm sure you have an example in mind, matt_hooks, and I'd welcome the enlightenment. :hmm:
con-pilot
27th Dec 2007, 18:50
Barit, interesting concept, engine failure after take-off not an emergency?
On three and four engine aircraft an engine failure is not covered in the emergency checklist, it considered an "Abnormal" item. Unless an engine fire is indicated. Just as Barit posted.
If you recall there was a huge thread a while back about a BA 747 going from, I believe SFO, to London on three engines.
sevenstrokeroll
27th Dec 2007, 19:07
Yes, its true...in two engine planes, engine failure is an emergency...three / four engine...it is abnormal checklist.
I think that BA plane was KLAX to LONDON, NOT KSFO.
I am reminded of "young frankenstein" and the doctor's trouble with the A. B. Normal (aby normal) brain...roll roll roll in the hay...oh never mind.
matt_hooks
27th Dec 2007, 21:20
Yes, there have been examples of three/four engined aircraft continuing with one out, but I'm sure it's not something that's recommended.
It may well not be on the emergency checklist, but it sure as heck isn't "operations normal".
barit1
28th Dec 2007, 03:15
I think the world record for distance on two (of three) was a SwissAir DC-10, KHI-ATH (2328 nm), in Sept 1978.
Actual distance was closer to 3000 since he flew up the Persian Gulf.
matt hooks:
Mr Trainee pilot:
Yes, there have been examples of three/four engined aircraft continuing with one out, but I'm sure it's not something that's recommended.
So when did you last decide to continue or not continue having lost an engine?